GeForce GTX 285M vs Quadro K4200

Place in performance ranking	391	907
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.71	0.28
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code name	GK104	N10E-GTX1
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	22 July 2014 (10 years ago)	2 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$854.99	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro K4200 has 1582% better value for money than GTX 285M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	1344	128
Core clock speed	771 MHz	576 MHz
Boost clock speed	784 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,540 million	754 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	108 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	87.81	38.40
Floating-point performance	2,107 gflops	384.0 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro K4200 and GeForce GTX 285M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-B (3.0)
Length	241 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	no data

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	5400 MHz	1020 MHz
Memory bandwidth	172.8 GB/s	64 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors

1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

No outputs

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.1	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	3.0	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro K4200 11.19
+578%

GTX 285M 1.65

Quadro K4200 outperforms GeForce GTX 285M by 578% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Quadro K4200 4321
+579%

GTX 285M 636

Quadro K4200 outperforms GeForce GTX 285M by 579% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p	140−150 +567%	21 −567%
Full HD	180−190 +567%	27 −567%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

This is how Quadro K4200 and GTX 285M compete in popular games:

Quadro K4200 is 567% faster in 900p
Quadro K4200 is 567% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 50 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	11.19	1.65
Recency	22 July 2014	2 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	108 Watt	75 Watt

Quadro K4200 has a 578.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

GTX 285M, on the other hand, has 44% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 285M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4200 is a workstation card while GeForce GTX 285M is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.